MugzyBrown:There's never been controversy in the NHL with a failing team getting the new phenom.

Not sure if serious.

But in case, Pittsburgh and Crosby. IIRC Pittsburgh was one of four teams with equally high odds coming out of the 2004 lockout of winning the draft lottery.

Pittsburgh was also in the midst of an ownership crisis, had been trying for a long time to negotiate a new arena deal to replace the ancient Igloo, and were even rumored to be a relocation target. They had poor attendance and were really struggling financially. Then they win the Draft Lottery and get to select the best player in a decade, and soon after all those other problems are resolved.

Gunny Highway:Flappyhead: And the NBA draft lottery is the most honest in all of sports.

If the draft was rigged why would Cleveland get the number one pick three times in 10 years? They proved to everyone they couldnt get it right the first time.

I am sure there is a good conspiracy theory here.

They had great odds when they got Lebron. They had two shots at the #1 pick for Irving (with the Clippers pick getting them 1st overall), as for Bennett, they got very lucky, but that draft blows.

As for the draft being rigged, see Ewing, Patrick and see Lakers, Los Angeles after the draft lottery this year.

Back on subject. Tanking is a very real thing in the NBA. Former Raptor GM pretty much confirmed it when he moved assets to give the team the best chance in the lottery. We see it every year. A team's best player goes down with some random injury, or the coach gives the 8th through 12th man serious minutes for the last 15-20 games of a season.

It's an embarrassment, and what's going on in Philly right now is simply making a joke of the sport. Admittedly, they are making tanking into an art form.

LoR75:Back on subject. Tanking is a very real thing in the NBA. Former Raptor GM pretty much confirmed it when he moved assets to give the team the best chance in the lottery. We see it every year. A team's best player goes down with some random injury, or the coach gives the 8th through 12th man serious minutes for the last 15-20 games of a season.

They also said that the Suns, Celtics and others were going to come out and tank this year. They havent. It sucks that it can work but I don't think it is as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be. You dont win titles because you get high draft picks. shiatty organizationsdont win because they cant get out of their own way. Good organizations win because they understand there is more to winning titles than just having super stars.

In other news, Congress assured the public that vote buying and cronyism does not exist. "Oh, that's just lobbying" said the Speaker of the House.

In reply to accusations of insider trading, Wall Street released a statement that it was a figment of the public's imagination. "What's really happening is just 'profit-taking'", a wholly honorable and historically justified exercise.

If tanking really worked, you wouldn't have to go back to 1997 to find a #1 pick who won a title with the team that drafted him. And that was a special case, because SA was a pretty solid team that just had a (possibly self-induced) craptastic season.

/Celtics fan//can't be mad with the effort the players and coaches are putting out, even if they're losing a lot///F you, Rick Pitino

BunkoSquad:If tanking really worked, you wouldn't have to go back to 1997 to find a #1 pick who won a title with the team that drafted him. And that was a special case, because SA was a pretty solid team that just had a (possibly self-induced) craptastic season.

/Celtics fan//can't be mad with the effort the players and coaches are putting out, even if they're losing a lot///F you, Rick Pitino

Despite what I said, I'd still be worried about the Lakers in the lottery if this was a year with a clear LeBron-like #1 instead of 5 or 6 potential teamchangers. I'm not a diehard NBA conspiracy theorist (my dad most definitely is) but there's plenty of circumstancial evidence, which as Lionel Hutz says, is a KIND of evidence

Despite what I said, I'd still be worried about the Lakers in the lottery if this was a year with a clear LeBron-like #1 instead of 5 or 6 potential teamchangers. I'm not a diehard NBA conspiracy theorist (my dad most definitely is) but there's plenty of circumstancial evidence, which as Lionel Hutz says, is a KIND of evidence

The Lakers do suck and there is a chance they get the number one pick. I will be pissed if they do.

Doc Daneeka:MugzyBrown: There's never been controversy in the NHL with a failing team getting the new phenom.

Not sure if serious.

But in case, Pittsburgh and Crosby. IIRC Pittsburgh was one of four teams with equally high odds coming out of the 2004 lockout of winning the draft lottery.

Pittsburgh was also in the midst of an ownership crisis, had been trying for a long time to negotiate a new arena deal to replace the ancient Igloo, and were even rumored to be a relocation target. They had poor attendance and were really struggling financially. Then they win the Draft Lottery and get to select the best player in a decade, and soon after all those other problems are resolved.

buckeyebrain:Doc Daneeka: MugzyBrown: There's never been controversy in the NHL with a failing team getting the new phenom.

Not sure if serious.

But in case, Pittsburgh and Crosby. IIRC Pittsburgh was one of four teams with equally high odds coming out of the 2004 lockout of winning the draft lottery.

Pittsburgh was also in the midst of an ownership crisis, had been trying for a long time to negotiate a new arena deal to replace the ancient Igloo, and were even rumored to be a relocation target. They had poor attendance and were really struggling financially. Then they win the Draft Lottery and get to select the best player in a decade, and soon after all those other problems are resolved.

Awfully convenient, that. How lucky of them.

Actually, in the post-lockout year, ALL 30 teams were in the lottery.

Yes, but the lottery was weighted based on results of the previous three years. Under the system used for that year, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Columbus, and NY Rangers were the four teams with the greatest chance of winning the lottery, each with three balls. All other teams had only one or two balls in the lottery.

What happened to the other three teams with the best chance in the Crosby sweepstakes? The Rangers pick wound up being 16th, and it was traded to Atlanta, who selected Alex Bourret, a bust who never played an NHL game. Buffalo wound up picking 13th and selected Marek Zagrapan, a bust who never played an NHL game. And Columbus selected Gilbert Brule at #6, who played less than three full seasons with them, was traded around a few times, suffered repeated injury problems, and retired at age 27 with less than 300 NHL games played.

So yeah, Pittsburgh definitely made out the best in that lottery. By quite a bit.

BunkoSquad:If tanking really worked, you wouldn't have to go back to 1997 to find a #1 pick who won a title with the team that drafted him. And that was a special case, because SA was a pretty solid team that just had a (possibly self-induced) craptastic season.

/Celtics fan//can't be mad with the effort the players and coaches are putting out, even if they're losing a lot///F you, Rick Pitino

I remember that 97 draft fairly well. I think Boston had the best odds and got shafted, but that's what you get for tanking so shamelessly. That's my first memory of seeing a team obviously tank, and tank hard to get the #1 overall pick. Didn't they finish like 40 games out of first place?

The Spurs lost The Admiral for the start, and when he came back, he played like 5 games, then was gone the rest of the season. I think Elliot went down as well for most of the year. When a washed up, zombified 'Nique Wilkins leads your team in scoring, you had some serious issues.

That draft brought us T-Mac. Man what could have been if only he and Vince could have grown up and be a poor man's MJ and Scottie.

They should just make Kobe coach and be done with it. He's never going to play meaningful minutes again anyways

Kobe as a coach? That would be glorious. He wouldn't last more than a season though because either the players would tune him out, or they would all be found murdered behind the Staples Centre one night.

So if tanking doesn't exist, why don't we get rid of the lottery? After all, the main reason it was instituted was because the Rockets tanked to get the top pick and the NBA didn't want to encourage other teams to do the same. However, if teams don't do it then we don't need the things that decentivizes (sp?) it, do we?

Doc Daneeka:buckeyebrain: Doc Daneeka: MugzyBrown: There's never been controversy in the NHL with a failing team getting the new phenom.

Not sure if serious.

But in case, Pittsburgh and Crosby. IIRC Pittsburgh was one of four teams with equally high odds coming out of the 2004 lockout of winning the draft lottery.

Pittsburgh was also in the midst of an ownership crisis, had been trying for a long time to negotiate a new arena deal to replace the ancient Igloo, and were even rumored to be a relocation target. They had poor attendance and were really struggling financially. Then they win the Draft Lottery and get to select the best player in a decade, and soon after all those other problems are resolved.

Awfully convenient, that. How lucky of them.

Actually, in the post-lockout year, ALL 30 teams were in the lottery.

Yes, but the lottery was weighted based on results of the previous three years. Under the system used for that year, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Columbus, and NY Rangers were the four teams with the greatest chance of winning the lottery, each with three balls. All other teams had only one or two balls in the lottery.

What happened to the other three teams with the best chance in the Crosby sweepstakes? The Rangers pick wound up being 16th, and it was traded to Atlanta, who selected Alex Bourret, a bust who never played an NHL game. Buffalo wound up picking 13th and selected Marek Zagrapan, a bust who never played an NHL game. And Columbus selected Gilbert Brule at #6, who played less than three full seasons with them, was traded around a few times, suffered repeated injury problems, and retired at age 27 with less than 300 NHL games played.

So yeah, Pittsburgh definitely made out the best in that lottery. By quite a bit.

Yeah, but that draft was a crap shoot after Sid although littered with some good talent.

Atlanta, Buffalo and Columbus, all gong shows of organizations though. You couldn't really expect them to draft well.

Jack Johnson, Tukka Rask, Neal, Statsny, the immortal TJ Oshie, Kopitar, Stall, Price, Ryan and Pickles all come to mind as those who have gone onto solid careers. Lots of Olympic experience in there as well (poor Bobby Ryan).

I REALLY wish our GM wasn't an idiot and held on to Tukka Rask. Ah what might have been. Then again, we probably don't trade for Kesselmania. (thank you Boston!)

But getting Bernier for a bag of magic beans was a nice consolation, albeit years after we watched Rask blossom into a stud.

dletter:Here is how you can somewhat get rid of "tanking" (if you believe that you can only tank closer to the end of the season) in the NBA:

The non-playoff teams are still the one's involved in the lottery, but their draft ball status is based on only their record after the first half of the season.

Now, one might say that, well, a team will just tank the entire way, instead of just dipping low at the end of the season..... maybe so, but, that will be much more noticeable then anyway.

Interesting, but you want to get rid of tanking?

Flip the percentages!

Make the teams that just missed the playoffs have the highest chance of drafting #1.

You reward smart, good teams (and fan bases) who just missed the playoffs by playing hard all year, and may be one or two pieces away from being a contender. That will eliminate tanking, cap floor teams, and poisoning your fan base.

It's the next best thing of just missing out the playoffs by a game or so. The fan base stays energized, and you are no longer selling hope, you are selling fresh talent to push you over the hump, that one missing piece.

Teams will have a reason to actually field a team that could beat a random D-League squad, fans will actually root for your team to win instead of rooting for your team to lose (which is happening all around the league right now).

It boggles my mind that people believe that professional athletes and coaches will intentionally lose. First of all it costs coaches and sometimes GM's their job. Second of all in order to get to be a professional athlete you have to be hyper competitive. Intentional losing is just such an absurd idea to these people.

There is no reason to have a draft lottery (NBA, NHL) because no team will lose intentionally. The worst team in the league SHOULD have the first overall pick because that's how you get better parity. The NFL has no problems with this, so why is this an issue in hockey and basketball.

Either the GMs are horrible, the ownership doesn't care, their scouting is run by a bunch of 10 year olds with etch a sketches and magic viewfinders, or it's a combination of all 3.

Let's use one team as an example.

Cleveland. Lucked out with Lebron, and couldn't scout or draft worth a lick to surround him with talent. He leaves, nothing is fixed, and they've had top 5 picks in the past 4 years, and are going to miss the playoffs again? HOW? How are they 25-40 and headed to a top 10 pick? That's impossible, unless you have a moron GM, which they did, but didn't realize it for 4 years, and those aformentioned 10 year olds as your scouting team. Poor Byron Scott though. Stabbed in the back by Jason Kidd, and then once again by Kyrie Irving.

Warlordtrooper:It boggles my mind that people believe that professional athletes and coaches will intentionally lose. First of all it costs coaches and sometimes GM's their job. Second of all in order to get to be a professional athlete you have to be hyper competitive. Intentional losing is just such an absurd idea to these people.

There is no reason to have a draft lottery (NBA, NHL) because no team will lose intentionally. The worst team in the league SHOULD have the first overall pick because that's how you get better parity. The NFL has no problems with this, so why is this an issue in hockey and basketball.

Having a high draft pick does nothing for parity.

Cleveland...4 top 5 picks in the last 4 drafts, presently 25-40 in a dreadful East.Sacramento...6 top 10 picks in last 6 drafts...presently 23-42 and still have 2 years to go before being remotely good.Washington...5 top 6 picks in the last 5 drafts...finally should eke into the playoffs this year.Minny...I believe 5 top 5 picks in six years...32-31, and will miss the payoffs. Rubio and Flynn. HAHA!Milwaukee...they drafted a guy in which his promo video was posting up a CHAIR. A freaking CHAIR.

Some teams wake up, and draft well and surround their picks with good players. The Clippers did this, Houston did this (and then reinvented themselves when the traded for Harden), but a #1 pick doesn't guarantee team success. Smartly surrounding those players, and having a strong scout team will give you far better odds at parity than a #1 pick.

As for the NFL, season is too short so tanking isn't so obvious, but it happens, and the #1 pick is also no guarantee there as well. Mario Williams, Jamarcus Russell. David Carr, Courtney Brown, Tim Couch (sorry Browns fans, all 3 of you) all off the top of my head drafted by poorly run organizations, all presently have serious problems and have either missed the playoffs entirely, or have been largely ineffective.